Yes. There seems to be no one trait which defines a person. What makes one person different from another begins as simply as DNA itself, becomes ever more complex as one matures, and then recedes in old age as once-essential traits disappear.

I misspoke. Katie is correct that everyone has an objective personal identity. But, like the body, it changes throughout one's life. Like a limb can be severed, a personal trait by which others relate to you can disappear. Who others know us to be is forever changing and always judged according to both perspective and circumstances.

Abortion and euthanasia boil down to debates over personhood because we disagree on the circumstances under which a "who" can become a "what" and vice versa.

We agree to war because we recognize that some things are more important than life itself. Animals merely survive. Humans instinctively desire to do more than survive. To define personhood is to define what makes human beings inherently more valuable than other animals, even before and after an age when we can act on such an instinct.

The reason particular views on abortion and euthanasia so often coincide is precisely because being human and alive is not enough to satisfy many people.

So what is a person?

It's not defined by intelligence, or we would value the adult chimp more than a human baby for its greater self-awareness, greater logical abilities and greater potential for interaction.

What makes a human being a "who" rather than a "what"?

One would think that would make Turkey more inclined to foolish strategies, not less.

One more point on personhood, since that's what this debate really revolves around.

Personhood is not an objective trait. It is relational. Personhood is "who" a person is. Though certain aspects of a person's character are constant, those aspects are important or unimportant depending on who you ask.

"Who is so-and-so?" He's a father or son. He's a friend or colleague. He's a good man, or a selfish man, or an impatient man. He's a New Yorker, a Texan or a Turk. He's a liberal or a conservative.

How we answer "who" changes depending on the circumstances... on who is asking and why. The more mature and experienced a person, the more possible answers one might provide.

The question of personhood as relates to abortion is really about what grants a being a right to life.

I would respond that the right to life — inherent human value — does not derive from one's actions or any quality which emerges during maturation before or after birth. Our value comes from without, not from within. We are each inherently precious because we are uniquely loved creations and adopted children of God.

You can't possibly be saying that those children [orphans, unwanted children, etc] should also be eliminated.

Yet even Rubio succumbs to euphemisms.

Killing a child in the womb is a brutal act. Brutality should be condemned as bluntly as possible. Don't even say "abortion". It's killing a child.

Left to nature, it will become a person.

Don't ever say that. That concedes that an unborn child is not a person, which is incorrect.

How we define a person grows and recedes as that person matures and diminshes in old age. Just as an old man breathing his final breaths, unable to speak or move, is still a person, a child who cannot yet speak or think is also a person.

There is nothing a month-old human baby can do that an adult chimpanzee cannot, yet it should go without question that the baby's life is more valuable than the chimp's. Our worth is not derived from what we can do. It is inherent, with God's love.

Anyway, I'm thankful that Rubio speaks for the children. Killing an innocent is not an acceptable way to avoid any hardship.

In case y'all missed it, here is Steyn's piece on the subject: "Komen has its awareness raised."

Planned Parenthood commandos hacked into the Komen website and changed its slogan from "Help us get 26.2 or 13.1 miles closer to a world without breast cancer" to "Help us run over poor women on our way to the bank."

These people are thugs, and should be treated as such.

Rush talked about this today. As he said, this is completely predictable. The reports will continue to signal a recovery right up to the November election.

Figures don't lie, but liars figure.

Wot must be on second. Good find.

Are we supposed to weep because we miss Reagan or because the tribute video is kicked off by Barack Obama and Jeffery Immelt?

You won't find anyone as blunt about this subject as Lt. Col. Allen West.

Justice can't exist without truth. Our governments can't be restored to sanity while political correctness goes unchallenged.

Every Western nation is broke and yet still lending imaginary value to other broke nations. It's a joke.

My extended family is close. A couple years ago, someone suggested that we should start a family farm together in south Alabama. The idea is gaining traction with many of the women as America's future (or lack thereof) comes into focus... though the men still stubbornly insist the economy will pick up again. When the collapse finally begins and forces the "life doesn't change" folks to consider the possibility that America really is vulnerable to collapse like any other society, that family farm will look a lot more attractive.

God is looking out for us. In the past couple years, two of my sisters unexpectedly hooked up with country boys who have a lot of experience living off the land and hunting.

But there is one possible way economic collapse could be averted: another World War. War has the potential to cancel debts, encourage productivity, and fundamentally transform domestic policies. Another World War was always inevitable due to modern technologies. But, as Santorum pointed out the other day, the lines are already being drawn.

Actually, Trump's endorsement might have an effect. Unlike Dole, who is a bore and generally ignored even by political junkies, Trump is a pop icon who has the ear of many swing voters. These are the sort of people who get their news from Jon Stewart. How much of an effect, I don't know.

It might matter in the general election, anyway. I doubt many Republican primary voters care much what Trump thinks.

"It's alive! It's ALIVE!!"

"Uh, no, President Romney. The economy is still dead. Now, can my son have his toy back?"

Here's a thought. How about we tax people less so that they can give more to charities? Charities have always focused on individuals who fall through the cracks.

How difficult is it, really, for a politician to tell the stories of various charities which serve people who need flu shots or kids dying of cancer and point out that every dollar going to bureaucrats in DC is not going to the people who provide face-to-face, individualized care for the sick and the poor?

Yes, our government is already in the healthcare business, so we must strive to change the expectations of citizens about the role of government. Republicans aren't failing to change expectations — they're not even trying.

If that's the case, then Romney should present it as such. He doesn't. He says it's a good system, not just the best possible compromise under threat of a worse law.

"I see a Mastercard, a Discover, and $20. You say this will work on any wallet?"